In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION

Filing 7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT in ("Related Actions) filed by Perrin Aikens Davis. (Kiesel, Paul) (Filed on 3/23/2012) Modified on 3/26/2012 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854)
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
[e-mail]
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
David A. Straite, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
SIANNI & STRAITE LLP
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
[e-mail]
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, et al.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15

IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION

16

No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT

17
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Trial Date:

18
19
20
21
22

PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN
GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ,
TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY SAURO,
JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA SABATO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

23
Plaintiffs,

March 30, 2010
1:30 p.m.
Hon. Edward J. Davila
None Set

Case No. 5:11-cv-04834-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04935-EJD;
5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

24
v.
Action Filed: September 30, 2011

25
26
27

FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation
Defendant.

28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1
2

LANA BRKIC,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

3
4
5

Case No. 5:11-04935-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834-EJD;
5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807EJD

Plaintiff,
v.

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1-10,

6

Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Defendants.

7
8

JULIAN CARROLL, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated,

9
10
11

Case No. 5:12-cv-00370-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and 5:12-cv00807-EJD

Plaintiff,
v.

Action Filed: January 24, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

LAURA MAGUIRE, ET AL., On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,

16
17
18
19
20

23
24

Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and
5:12-cv-00370-EJD

Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,

Action Filed: February 17, 2012

Defendant.
ALEXANDRIA PARRISH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00667-EJD

21
22

Case No. 5:12-cv-00807-EJD

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
v.

Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28
2.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

SHARON BEATTY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00668-EJD

2

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,

Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

Defendants.
BROOKE RUTLEDGE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00669-EJD

5
6
7

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9

Action Filed: October 12, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
10
Defendants.
11
12

MICHAEL SINGLEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 5:12-cv-00670-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Transferred February 08, 2012

Defendants.

17
18

DANA HOWARD, individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20
21

24

27
28

Action Filed: October 4, 2011 and
Transferred on February 8, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
JOHN GRAHAM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00673-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,

25
26

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

v.

22
23

Case No. 5:12-cv-00671-EJD

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,

Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

Defendants.
3.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00674-EJD

2

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
3
v.

Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

4

6

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
JANET SEAMON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

7

Plaintiff,

5

8
9

12

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

15

CHANDRA L. THOMPSON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

Action Filed: September 30, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

v.

Defendants.
STEPHANIE CAMPBELL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

18
19
20

23

v.
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

26
27

Action Filed: November 21, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

Defendants.
CYNTHIA D. QUINN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00797-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,

24
25

Case No. 5:12-cv-00796-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,

21
22

Case No. 5:12-cv-00676-EJD

Plaintiff,

16
17

Action Filed: October 10, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012

Defendants.

13
14

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

v.

10
11

Case No. 5:12-cv-00675-EJD

v.
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

Action Filed: October 18, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

Defendants.

28
4.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

JEANNE M. WALKER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00798-EJD

2

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
3
4

v.
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

5
6

Action Filed: October 20, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

Defendants.

JACQUELINE BURDICK, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00799-EJD

7

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
8
9

v.

Action Filed: October 25, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,

10

Defendants.

11

EDWARD STRAVATO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

19

Action Filed: December 14, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC.; JOHN DOE 1-10,
Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-00801-EJD

MATTHEW J. VICKERY, and Other Persons
Similarly Situated,

17
18

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

v.

15
16

Case No. 5:12-cv-00800-EJD

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
v.

Action Filed: November 14, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 thru 10,

20
Defendants.
21
22

PATRICK K. MALONEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

23
24
25

Plaintiff,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00824-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

v.
Action Filed: January 25, 2012
Transferred February 21, 2012

FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

26
Defendants.
27
28
5.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

JOON KHANG, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 5:12-cv-00825-EJD

2

In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
FACEBOOK, INC.,

Action Filed: February 1, 2012
Transferred February 21, 2012

5
Defendant.
6
7
8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9

The parties in the “Related Actions” (defined below) consolidated into the above-

10

captioned MDL action jointly submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

11

pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California dated July 1,

12

2011 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

13

1.

14

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims asserted in the Related

15

Actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant

16

Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) because it is headquartered in the State of California. Venue is

17

proper by agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and through assignment from the Judicial Panel

18

on Multidistrict Litigation. Facebook is the only named Defendant in any of the Related Actions

19

and has been served.1
2.

20

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FACTUAL DISPUTES

a. Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Facts

21
22

Defendant Facebook operates the world’s largest social networking web site, with more

23

than 800 million users globally, and 150 million users in the United States. Although Facebook

24

members are not required to pay a monetary subscription fee, membership is conditioned upon

25

users providing sensitive personal information to Facebook upon registration, including name,

26
27
28

1

Facebook has not yet been properly served with a summons and complaint in Singley v.
Facebook, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00670-EJD or Maguire v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00807-EJD,
but is willing to accept a waiver of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) in both cases.
6.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

birth date, gender and email address. More importantly, use of Facebook is conditioned upon the

2

user accepting numerous Facebook cookies on the user’s computer which track browsing history.

3

This information, including the member’s unique Facebook identifier, is then harvested by

4

Facebook from the user’s computer. Facebook uses the information to generate approximately $4

5

billion of revenue annually for the company.

6
7

Facebook installs two types of cookies on members’ computers: session cookies, and
tracking cookies. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco:

8
9
10

Session cookies are set when you log into Facebook and they include data like
your unique Facebook user ID. They are directly associated with your Facebook
account. When you log out of Facebook, the session cookies are supposed to be
deleted.

11
12
13
14
15
16

Tracking cookies - also known as persistent cookies - don’t expire when you leave
your Facebook account. Facebook sets one tracking cookie known as 'datr' when
you visit Facebook.com, regardless of whether or not you actually have an
account. This cookie sends data back to Facebook every time you make a request
of Facebook.com, such as when you load a page with an embedded Facebook 'like'
button. This tracking takes place regardless of whether you ever interact with a
Facebook 'like' button. In effect, Facebook is getting details of where you go on
the Internet.

19

When you leave Facebook without logging out and then browse the web, you have
both tracking cookies and session cookies. Under those circumstances, Facebook
knows whenever you load a page with embedded content from Facebook (like a
Facebook 'like' button) and also can easily connect that data back to your
individual Facebook profile.

20

Use of Facebook is governed by the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and a

17
18

21

number of other documents and policies, including a Data Use Policy and a Privacy Policy.

22
Although the governing documents make clear that users consent to Facebook installing cookies
23
24

on the user’s computer, and although the users consent to these cookies tracking and transmitting

25

to Facebook data regarding each user’s web browsing, such consent was limited to internet usage

26

while the user is logged on to Facebook. Users do not consent to having records of their web

27

browsing tracked after logging out of Facebook, because the session cookies were supposed to be

28
6.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

deleted. On Facebook’s online help center, Facebook clearly and unambiguously emphasized,

2

“When you log out of Facebook, we remove the cookies that identify your particular account.”

3

Sometime in 2010, an Australian technology writer, Nik Cubrilovic, discovered that the

4
session cookies Facebook placed on its users’ computers were still active even after users had
5
6

logged off of Facebook. Mr. Cubrilovic warned Facebook of this problem on at least two

7

occasions starting in November, 2010, but Facebook failed to take corrective action and

8

continued to collect data from its millions of active cookies worldwide.

9

Mr. Cubrilovic went public with his research on September 25, 2011. The next day, on

10

September 26, 2011, Facebook publicly admitted that its session cookies continued to remain

11

even after logoff, and agreed to fix the “bug” as the company called it. The next day, the Irish

12
13

Government announced an audit of Facebook under EU privacy rules (Facebook’s primary

14

European data center is in Ireland). Two days letter, U.S. Representatives Edward Markey and

15

Joe Barton, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, sent a letter to the

16

Federal Trade Commission demanding to know what action the FTC was taking under Section 5

17

of the FTC Act.

18

The following day, on September 29, 2011, the Electronic Privacy Information Center,

19
joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Bill of
20
21

Rights Defense Committee, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Media and

22

Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Activism, and Privacy Times also

23

recommended that the FTC investigate. In their letter to the FTC, the group added that Facebook

24

might not have actually fixed the problem as claimed.

25
26

Finally, despite Facebook’s claim that it fixed the “bug,” researchers are uncovering yet
more methods whereby Facebook is able to track its users even after logout. For example, a

27
researcher at Stanford University has discovered instances in which Facebook was setting
28
7.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

tracking cookies on browsers of people when they visited sites other than Facebook.com. These

2

tracking cookies were being set when individuals visited certain Facebook Connect sites. As a

3

result, people who never interacted with a Facebook.com widget, and who never visited

4
Facebook.com, were still facing tracking by Facebook cookies. The EFF notes in the October 11,
5
6

2011 report that Facebook now can track web browsing history without cookies:
Facebook is able to collect data about your browser – including your IP address
and a range of facts about your browser – without ever installing a cookie. They
can use this data to build a record of every time you load a page with embedded
Facebook content. They keep this data for 90 days and then presumably discard
or otherwise anonymize it. That's a far cry from being able to shield one’s
reading habits from Facebook.

7
8
9
10
11

The Plaintiffs believe that the principal factual issues in dispute include but are not limited to:
(a)

12
13

documents and policies permitted Facebook to track the internet use of its members post-logout;

14
15

Whether or not Defendant Facebook’s Terms of Use and other governing

(b)

Whether or not Defendant Facebook tracked the internet use of its members post-

(c)

Whether or not Facebook members consented to being tracked post-logout;

(d)

Whether or not Facebook members sustained compensable harm under relevant

logout;

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

law as a result of Facebook’s actions;
(e)

The methods by which Facebook tracked the internet use of its members, including

but not limited to session cookies, tracking cookies, tracking pixels, javascript, or other;
(f)

The extent of information tracked and gathered by Facebook from its members;

(g)

Whether the information intercepted by Facebook was “in flight” within the

23
24
25

meaning of relevant statutes;

26

(h)

Whether and to what extent Facebook remedied the problem; and

27

(i)

The extent to which Facebook maintained or is still maintaining data improperly

28

tracked; and
8.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

(j)

Whether Facebook’s post-logout tracking was done knowingly.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Facebook’s Statement of the Facts
As an initial matter, Facebook believes that Plaintiffs’ argumentative statement of the case
is neither necessary nor appropriate for this case management statement. But since Plaintiffs
insist on including it, Facebook is compelled to respond briefly.
Facebook is a social networking website that enables people to connect and share with
their friends, families, and communities. To join, Users need only provide their name, age,
gender, and a valid e-mail address; they are also informed of Facebook’s Privacy Policy (now
called the “Data Use Policy”), which specifically discloses that Facebook uses cookies for certain
purposes. Once Users register, they create a profile and may begin connecting with other Users
by inviting them to become Facebook “Friends.” Facebook provides a service that hundreds of
millions of people use every day to connect with the people they care about—for free.
Facebook offers Users an array of options for sharing content and communicating with
each other both on Facebook and third-party websites. These options include the Facebook Like
button, which allows Users to click a button associated with some particular content (e.g., a news
article, a video, a blog post, or a video) in order to share or communicate their affinity for that
content with their Facebook Friends.
The main allegations in these cases are based primarily on the September 2011 blog posts
of Australian technology blogger, Nik Cubrilovic and concern Facebook’s alleged use of cookies
to collect browsing history when Users were logged out of their Facebook account. Plaintiffs’
inflammatory claims notwithstanding, the use of cookies is ubiquitous throughout the Internet.
Most interactive websites with any level of meaningful functionality could not operate without
them. Facebook uses cookies for a variety of functions including, for instance, offering features
on other websites (e.g., the Like, Share, and Recommend buttons and other enhancements) and
ensuring the security of the Facebook site and Facebook Users.
These cases involve substantially the same parties, with Facebook named as the sole
defendant in the majority of these cases.

Likewise, the factual allegations, issues of law,
9.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

defenses, and demands for relief are substantially the same across the cases and it is likely that

2

discovery and motion practice will overlap.

3

As Facebook will show, the allegations in these cases do not state any claims, and neither

4

the named Plaintiffs nor the members of the putative class have been harmed by the alleged

5

conduct in any way. Facebook reserves any and all rights, defenses and objections to the facts

6

alleged by the Plaintiffs in these actions

7

3.

8

Plaintiffs contend that the following are the main disputed points of law:

9
10

LEGAL ISSUES

a.

Whether Facebook violated state and/or federal law by tracking the internet

use of its members post-logout; and

11

b.

Whether the theft of personally identifiable information (“PII”) is a

12

compensable injury sufficient to confer standing within Article III of the United States

13

Constitution; and

14

c.

15
16
17
18

Whether the proposed class can be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Facebook denies the allegations in the complaints and denies that the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 can be met in any of the pending cases.
4.

MOTIONS
a.

There have been motions to appear Pro Hac Vice granted by this court. All

19

counsel wishing to appear before this Court and who not yet admitted pro hac propose to make

20

additional motions for admission pro hac as soon as practicable.

21

b.

Defendant Facebook has filed several motions to relate cases. The Court

22

has granted all such motions but for certain pro se cases, which the Court has already ruled

23

unrelated. A list of all current “Related Actions” are listed below in Section 10.

24
25
26

c.

Defendant Facebook has filed a number of motions to extend time. None

are currently pending.
d.

Motion Pursuant to Rule 23(g): Counsel in all Related Actions (except

27

Khang and Carroll) intend to file a joint motion for interim lead of the consolidated MDL on or

28

about Tuesday, March 27, 2012, in advance of the March 30, 2012 CMC. In the Motion for
10.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Interim Lead, in addition to proposing lead plaintiffs to represent the proposed class, counsel will

2

propose the following leadership structure which recognizes the complex and high-profile nature

3

of this case:

4

i.

An Executive Committee with 2 firms co-leading the action;

5

ii.

A Plaintiff’s Steering Committee with 7 firms to assist co-lead

6

counsel at the direction of co-lead counsel;

7

iii.

8

A special advisory committee consisting of three former State
Attorneys General to advise co-lead counsel; and

9

iv.

10

e.

11

One firm with an office in California to act as Liaison Counsel.

Interim Lead Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for class certification at the
appropriate time during the litigation.

12

f.

13

Facebook will file a response to the Consolidated Amended Complaint
within 60 days of the Complaint’s filing.

14

g.

On February 8, 2012, counsel for Singley filed a Motion to Substitute

15

Plaintiff and Motion to Amend Pleading with the Revised Caption.

16

Facebook has not yet been served with the motion.

17

h.

Facebok may file a motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of any

18

initial motion practice that follows the filing of the Consolidated Amended

19

Complaint under Rule 12(b).

20

i.

21

Plaintiffs and Defendant may also file a motion for summary judgment or
partial summary judgment.

22

5.

23

Within 60 days of interim class counsel assignment, Interim Lead Plaintiffs propose to file

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

24

their consolidated class action complaint.

25

Defendant, but may name additional defendants who are individual directors, employees, agents,

26

or contractors of Facebook as discovery warrants.

Plaintiffs intend to name Facebook as the sole

27
28
11.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

If the Actions go forward after initial motion practice on the sufficiency of the pleadings,

2

Facebook believes that any further amendment to the pleadings should be completed within three

3

(3) months of a decision permitting Plaintiffs’ claims to go forward.

4

6.

5

The parties are aware of and taking reasonable steps to comply with their evidence

6

preservation obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules governing

7

electronic discovery.

EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

8

Plaintiff Thompson sent a certified spoliation letter to Facebook on October 4, 2011

9

explaining and explicitly itemizing the potentially discoverable material under Defendant’s

10

control. Plaintiffs take the position that Defendant is required to take all necessary measures to

11

ensure that all electronic records pertaining to Plaintiffs and the putative class members are being

12

preserved, as well as all relevant non-electronic records.

13

7.

14

Subject to Facebook’s possible motion to stay discovery referenced in section 4 above, the

15

parties propose that the Rule 26 meet and confer occur within 14 days after the filing of the

16

Amended Consolidated Complaint and that initial disclosures will occur at or within 14 days of

17

the parties’ meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(C).

DISCLOSURES

18

8.

19

No formal discovery has yet occurred in this action. The parties propose filing a joint

20

DISCOVERY

proposed discovery schedule (to the extent the parties can reach agreement).

21

Subject to Facebook’s possible motion to stay discovery referenced in section 4 above, the

22

parties propose filing the joint proposed discovery schedule promptly after the Rule 26(f)

23

conference discussed in section 7 above.

24

9.

25

Plaintiffs in each and every Related Action bring this action on behalf of themselves and

26

others similarly situated as a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). After this Court’s

27

determination of interim lead plaintiff and counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), Counsel will propose a

28

class definition in the consolidated class action complaint discussed above.

CLASS ACTION

12.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Facebook denies that this putative class may be certified under Rule 23.

2

10.

3

There are twenty-one (21) actions related to this MDL either by the Judicial Panel on

4

RELATED CASES

Multidistrict Litigation or by the clerk of the Northern District of California. These cases are:

5

Case Name

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Parrish v. Facebook Inc
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Beatty v. Facebook Incorporated
et al
Joon Khang v. Facebook Inc
Carroll v. Facebook, Inc
Davis et al v. Facebook, Inc.
Brkic v. Facebook, Inc
Quinn v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Howard v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Graham v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Hoffman v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Seamon v. Facebook, Inc.
Thompson v. Facebook, Inc.
Rutledge v. Facebook, Inc.
Walker v. Facebook
Maloney v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Burdick et al v. Facebook Inc et al
Stravato v. Facebook, Inc.
Maguire, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.
Vickery v. Facebook, Inc.
Singley v. Facebook, Inc.

Original Court and Case
Number

N.D. Cal. Case Number

ALN/2:11-cv-03576
ARW/5:11-cv-05266
AZ/2:11-cv-01964

5:12-cv-00667-EJD
5:12-cv-00796-EJD
5:12-cv-00668-EJD

CAC/8:12-cv-00161
CAN/3:12-cv-00370
CAN/5:11-cv-04834
CAN/5:11-cv-04935
HI/1:11-cv-00623
ILS/3:11-cv-00895
KS/2:11-cv-02556
KYW/5:11-cv-00166
LAM/3:11-cv-00689
MOW/2:11-cv-04256
MSN/3:11-cv-00133
MT/1:11-cv-00118
OHS/2:12-cv-00078
OKW/5:11-cv-01214
RI/1:11-cv-00624
CAN/5:12-cv-0807
WAW/2:11-cv-01901
TXW/1:11-cv-00874

5:12-cv-00825-EJD
5:12-cv-00370-EJD
5:11-cv-04834-EJD
5:11-cv-04935-EJD
5:12-cv-00797-EJD
5:12-cv-00671-EJD
5:12-cv-00673-EJD
5:12-cv-00674-EJD
5:12-cv-00675-EJD
5:12-cv-00676-EJD
5:12-cv-00669-EJD
5:12-cv-00798-EJD
5:12-cv-00824-EJD
5:12-cv-00799-EJD
5:12-cv-00800-EJD
5:12-cv-00807-EJD
5:12-cv-00801-EJD
5:12-cv-00670-EJD

On March 16, 2012, Facebook filed a Notice of Pending Action pursuant to Local Civil
19
Rule 3-13 with the Court in the MDL Actions to inform the Court of a related case, Ung v.
20
Facebook, Inc., No. 112-cv-217244, now pending in Santa Clara Superior Court. Plaintiffs do
21
not agree at this time that the Ung case is “related” to the instant action.
22
While this Court previously denied Facebook’s motion to relate Knox v. Facebook, Inc.,
23
No. 5:11-cv-05699-EJD, Gayfield v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05700-EJD, Guyton v.
24
Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05701-EJD, Wood v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05763-EJD, and
25

Valentine v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05764-EJD (the “Pro Se Cases”)2 to Davis v. Facebook,

26
27
28

2

Additional, nearly-identical pro se cases McClinton v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-06367-EJD,
Thomas v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-06607-EJD, Sanders v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:11-cv06645-EJD, and Skiles v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00468-EJD were filed after the Court
13.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

No. 5:11-cv-04834-EJD, Facebook continues to suspect that the plaintiffs in the Pro Se Cases are

2

inartfully pleading the same or similar claims as those in the MDL Actions. If these cases

3

proceed, the need for coordination of discovery and other matters will become increasingly

4

apparent. Accordingly, Facebook believes that, even if the MDL Actions and Pro se Cases are

5

not related, they should be coordinated to promote judicial efficiency and preserve party

6

resources.

7

11.

8

Plaintiffs seek monetary relief in the form of damages including but not limited to actual

9

damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. At this time the monetary

10

amount is unknown as both the size of the class and method for calculating the damages is not

11

presently known to Plaintiffs. It can be said, however, that at the time of filing there were over

12

150 million Facebook users in the United States during the proposed Class Period (dates to be

13

defined by interim lead counsel in the forthcoming consolidated class action complaint), and 800

14

million users globally, and the claims for violations of one of the relevant statutes (the Federal

15

Wiretap Act) provides for $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is

16

greater. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.

17
18

RELIEF SOUGHT

Facebook denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Additionally,

Facebook reserves all rights, claims, and defenses available under law.

19

12.

20

The parties do not believe that any ADR process is appropriate at this time.

21

13.

22

The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings.

23

14.

24

The parties (except the Plaintiffs in Maguire) have previously appeared before the Judicial

25

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in this matter and appear before this transferee court as a result

SETTLEMENT AND ADR

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

OTHER REFERENCES

26
27
28

denied Facebook’s motion to relate and Facebook consequently did not seek to have them related
to Davis.
14.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

of the order dated February 8, 2012 (MDL No. 2314). The parties do not believe this case is

2

suitable for other reference be it binding arbitration or a special master.

3

15.

4

At this time, the parties do not believe there are any issues that can be narrowed.

5

16.

6

The parties do not believe this case is of the type that can be handled on an expedited

7

NARROWING OF ISSUES

EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE

basis.

8

17.

9

The parties’ proposal regarding the appropriate timing for Facebook’s response to the

10

SCHEDULING

Consolidated Complaint is discussed in Section 4(f) above.

11

18.

12

The parties propose to meet and confer at the beginning of discovery to propose a trial

13

TRIAL

schedule.

14

19.

15

Interim Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file a Certification of Interested Entities or

16

DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

Persons within 10 days of the date of the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

17

20.

18

There are no additional matters to add to this joint statement.

19

OTHER MATTERS

Dated: March 23, 2012

COOLEY LLP

20
21
22
23
24
25

/s/ Jeffrey M. Gutkin
Jeffrey M. Gutkin (216083)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

26
27
28
15.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

SIANNI & STRAITE LLP

2
3
/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite

4
5
6
7
8
9

Barry R. Eichen
Daryl L. Zaslow
EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW &
McELROY LLP
40 Ethel Road
Edison, NJ 08817
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14

Paul R. Kiesel
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

15
16

Stephen G. Grygiel
John E Keefe, Jr.
Stephen Sullivan, Jr.
KEEFE BARTELS LLP
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs PERRIN AIKENS
DAVIS, PETERSEN GROSS, DR. BRIAN K.
LENTZ, TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY
SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA
SABATO

17
18
19

David A. Straite
Ralph N. Sianni
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

Dated: March 23, 2012

WILLOUGHBY DOYLE LLP

20
21

/s/ Conal Fergus Doyle
Conal Fergus Doyle

22

25

433 North Camden Drive, Suite 730
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26

Attorney for Plaintiff LANA BRKIC

23
24

27
28
16.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

THE TERRELL LAW GROUP

2
3

/s/ Reginald Terrell
Reginald Terrell

4
Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
Oakland, CA 94661
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (510)-237-4616

5
6
7

Attorney for Plaintiff JULIAN CARROLL
8
Dated: March 23, 2012

GIRARD GIBBS LLP

9
10
11

/s/ Eric H. Gibbs
Eric H. Gibbs

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

GIRARD GIBBS LLP
DAVID STEIN
[e-mail]
ERIC H. GIBBS
[e-mail]
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

MURPHY, P.A.
WILLIAM H. MURPHY JR.
[e-mail]
WILLIAM H. MURPHY, III
[e-mail]
TONYA OSBORNE BAÑA
[e-mail]
KAMBON WILLIAMS
[e-mail]
One South Street, 23rd Floor
LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS Baltimore, MD 21202
PETER G. ANGELOS
Telephone: [phone]
100 North Charles Street
Facsimile: [phone]
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAURA MAGUIRE and
CHRISTOPHER SIMON (Plaintiffs in the
Maguire v. Facebook, Inc. action)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

BURNS CUNNINGHAM & MACKEY PC

2
3

/s/ William M. Cunningham, Jr.
William M. Cunningham, Jr.

4
Peter S. Mackey
Peter F. Burns
P.O. Box 1583
Mobile, AL 36633
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9

Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDRIA PARRISH
10
Dated: March 23, 2012

GRANT WOODS PC

11
12
/s/ Grant Woods
Grant Woods

13
14

Two Renaissance Square
40 N. Central Ave., Suite 2250
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

15
16
17

Attorney for Plaintiff SHARON BEATTY

18
19

Dated: March 23, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SHELTON PLLC

20
21

/s/ David Shelton
David Shelton

22

24

P.O. Box 2541
Oxford, MS 38655
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

25

Attorney for Plaintiff BROOKE RUTLEDGE

23

26
27
28
18.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

BISHOP LONDON & DODDS, P.C.

2
3

/s/ Alice London
Alice London

4

3701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78746
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL SINGLEY

8
9

Dated: March 23, 2012

GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI &
ROWLAND, P.C.

10
11
12

/s/ Thomas P. Rosenfeld
Thomas P. Rosenfeld (IL 6301406)

16

Mark C. Goldenberg
2227 South State Route 157
P.O. Box 959
Edwardsville, IL 62025
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17

Attorneys for Plaintiff DANA HOWARD

13
14
15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON &
GORNY – LEAWOOD

2
3
/s/ Chip Robertson
Edward D. Robertson, Jr.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Andrew J. Lyskowski
Erik A. Bergmanis
BERGMANIS LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
380 W. Hwy. 54, Suite 201
P.O. Box 229
Camdenton, MO 65020
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Stephen M. Gorny
James P. Frickleton
Mary D. Winter
Edward D. Robertson III
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN GRAHAM
11
Dated: March 23, 2012

BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC

12
13

18

/s/ Mark P. Bryant
Mark P. Bryant
Emily Ward Roark
601 Washington Street
P.O. Box 1876
Paducah, KY 42002
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

19

Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID M. HOFFMAN

14
15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

HYMEL, DAVIS & PETERSEN, LLC

2
3

/s/ Michael Reese Davis
Michael Reese Davis

4
L. J. Hymel
Richard P. Ieyoub
Tim P. Hartdegen
10602 Coursey Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorney for Plaintiff JANET SEAMON

11
12

Dated: March 23, 2012

BERGMANIS & MCDUFFEY

Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
Mary Doerhoff Winter
BARTIMUS FRIEKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Andrew S. Lyskowski
Andrew S. Lyskowski

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

380 W. Hwy 54, Suite 201
P.O. Box 229
Camdenton, MO 65020
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
CHANDRA L. THOMPSON

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

BRIAN L. CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, PLLC

/s/ Grant Rahmeyer
Grant Rahmeyer

/s/ Brian Lee Campbell
Brian Lee Campbell

STRONG-GARNER-BAUER, P.C.
415 East Chestnut Expressway
Springfield, MO 65802
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (417)-88704385

P.O. Box 189
Pea Ridge, AR 72751
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHANIE CAMPBELL
Dated: March 23, 2012

BRONSTER HOSHIBATA

10
11

/s/ Robert M. Hatch
Robert M. Hatch

12

16

Margery S. Bronster
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17

Attorney for Plaintiff CYNTHIA D. QUINN

13
14
15

18

Dated: March 23, 2012

ELIZABETH CUNNINGHAM THOMAS PLLC

19
20

/s/ Elizabeth C. Thomas
Elizabeth C. Thomas

21

23

P.O. Box 8946
Missoula, MT 59802
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (406)-728-2828

24

Attorney for Plaintiff JEANNE M. WALKER

22

25
26
27
28
22.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

MEYER & LEONARD PLLC

2
3

/s/ Henry A. Meyer, III
Henry A. Meyer, III

4

7

116 E Sheridan, Suite 207
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (405)-605-8381

8

Attorney for Plaintiff JACQUELINE BURDICK

5
6

9

Dated: March 23, 2012

MANDELL, SCHWARTZ & BOISCLAIR, LTD.

10
/s/ Zachary Mandell ______
Zachary Mandell

11
12

16

Michael S. Schwartz
Mark S. Mandell
1 Park Row
Providence, RI 02903
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17

Attorney for Plaintiff EDWARD STRAVATO

13
14
15

18

Dated: March 23, 2012

HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON

19
20

/s/ Michael Ramsey Scott
Michael Ramsey Scott

21

25

Louis David Peterson
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26

Attorney for Plaintiff MATTHEW J. VICKERY

22
23
24

27
28
23.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Dated: March 23, 2012

METZ, BAILEY & MCLOUGHLIN

2
3

/s/ Michael J. Ensminger
Michael J. Ensminger

4

Kyle I. Stroh
Michael K. Fultz
33 East Schrock Road
Westerville, OH 43081
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (614)-882-5150

5
6
7
8
9

Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICK K. MALONEY

10
11

Dated: March 23, 2012

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

Jon A. Tostrud
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Marc L. Godino
Marc L. Godino
Lionel Z. Glancy
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, California 90067
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Attorney for Plaintiff JOON KHANG
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 23, 2012, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed

3 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing
4 to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I
5 caused the foregoing document or paper to be mailed via the United States Postal Service to the
6 non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List.
7

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 23, 2012.
9
10 DATED: March 23, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

11

KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP

12
13
14
15
16

By:

/s/ Paul R. Kiesel
Paul R. Kiesel
[e-mail]
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5:11-CV-04834 –EJD AND ALL CASES IN
5:12-MD-02314-EJD